A Live Reading of Thomas Paines Common Sense with Carrington MacDuffie | Livestream begins at 7 PM EST

➡ Ron Partain and Carrington McDuffie, a narrator and voice actor, host a live stream on the Untold History Channel. They discuss historical documents, including those from the Revolutionary War period. They plan to consistently review these documents, possibly on Wednesdays or Thursdays. Their current focus is on Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” a key document that influenced the decision to go to war.
➡ The text discusses the 17th amendment, which changed how senators were chosen, shifting from state governments to public voting. It also explores the Civil War, referred to as the second American Revolution, where the South fought for self-determination. The Confederate Constitution is praised for combining the best parts of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Lastly, it delves into Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” emphasizing the importance of the message over the author’s identity.
➡ The text discusses the difference between society and government, stating that society is formed by our needs and government by our wickedness. It suggests that while society unites us, government controls our vices. The text also argues that government is a necessary evil, providing protection and security, but can also cause suffering. It further explains that as a community grows, it becomes necessary to have representatives to manage legislative matters, ensuring the interests of all parts of the community are considered.
➡ The speaker discusses their dislike for the concept of royalty and celebrity, viewing them as forms of aristocracy. They believe in the revolutionary idea of everyone being equal, which they see as a cornerstone of democracy. They criticize the English constitution for its complexity and the power it gives to the monarchy, arguing that it’s contradictory and ineffective. They conclude by saying that while they’ve tried to prevent absolute monarchy, they’ve ironically given the monarchy the key to power.
➡ The text discusses the comparison of government systems, particularly between England and Turkey, highlighting that the people’s constitution, not the government’s, is what prevents oppression. It also emphasizes the importance of unbiased judgment when evaluating a government system. The conversation then shifts to personal anecdotes and opinions about flags, craftsmanship, and the current state of news and politics, with a shared sentiment towards reindustrialization and skepticism towards political parties.
➡ The text discusses a conversation about the historical period of monarchy and hereditary succession, comparing it to today’s world. The speakers admire the efforts of the past, noting the challenges of communication without the internet. They also discuss a series about John Adams, highlighting the simplicity and humility of early American life compared to European monarchies. The conversation ends with a discussion about cryptocurrency, its potential future impact, and the hesitance to advise others due to the financial risks involved.
➡ The speaker believes we are in a global revolutionary period, with people worldwide looking to the United States for leadership. They discuss the perception of the U.S. government and its agencies, suggesting they are often seen as exploiting other countries for resources. The speaker also predicts another industrial revolution, which will be global and led by figures like President Trump. The conversation also touches on Trump’s divisive character, the American spirit, and the nature of war.

Buddy. Welcome to the Untold History Channel. My name is Ron Partain and I am joined with Carrington or by Carrington McDuffie, who. And, and that’s weird. Among many of her other. Sorry, I just got an error message that my stream to X didn’t go through. But we want that. Don’t we want that? Yeah, I mean it’s what I, what I prefer is I’m. I mean I do. Would love to have people, but I can’t, I can’t, I can’t fix that if it doesn’t, if it doesn’t want to do it, it doesn’t want to do it. So.

Right, okay. But anyway, that’s it. That’s neither here nor there. The. At the end of the day this stream will be live and I can always share it later on to onto. Onto X. So. But Carrington is actually a. What, what are you like a narrator? Is that the right word? That is a word. I’m a recording artist, I’m a narrator voice actor. I do a lot of long form narration, audiobook narration. I do character work. I’ve done video games, accents, you know, characters, all that stuff. And this is really what we’ve been, what you and I have been doing, Ron, has been.

I mean this is some of the finest material anyone could ever say out loud. Yeah. So I agree. I absolutely agree. And it’s for a good cause because. And, and there’s no shortage of it. Yeah. You know, you know, I have a good friend of mine, Brady, who, his girlfriend is, our future wife is up in. They live in New Hampshire now, but he’s from here in Southern California and her father has a huge collection of revolutionary artifacts and Revolutionary War period artifacts. And one of them is a library. He’s got, he’s probably got in in excess of 4,000 books that are from that period of time.

You know, has he collected them over time or did he get it all in one or. I’m not 100% sure. I didn’t ask him. But he’s, but the agreement is, is that he can bor. At a time from his future father in law. He can borrow two books at a time and. Yeah, but I, I showed him the, like the book scanner, what is it? The seizure book scanner where you can like you basically go through a, a book and you can scan it in about 20 minutes, so. And put it in a PDF, then you can keep it in perpetuity.

Which is. Right. Which is really cool. Yeah. So anyway. Oh, it looks like the X thing finally picked Up. So we’re good. But anyway, so since Carrington does this professionally, which I’m honored to have her here to go through some of this material and this. We. We’ve actually discussed this. We. We kind of want to do this on a consistent basis. So not 100 sure what days of the week that we’re going to do this, but we’re probably looking at either a Wednesday or a Thursday as a consistent day where we go through some of this revolutionary.

And some of the old literature written by our founders and the founding fathers and whatnot. So anyway, last. Last week we did. What was it? The. I’m drawing a blank on the. On the title, but it was essentially the. The authorization, or it’s kind of like a declaration of. Of using force. Yeah, the Declaration of the Causes and. And. And for Taking Up Arms against the British, which was drafted in 1775 and just laid out all the reasons it had reached the point where there was no other recourse but to go to war. Right. And so that was.

That was a fascinating document to go through. And now we’re going to go through Thomas Payne’s Common Sense, which. Which is going to be fantastic as well. So I doubt we’ll get through all of it tonight. It’s. No, no, no. Yeah, it’s. It’s kind of lengthy, so probably take about, what, maybe seven or eight shows to do that. Something like that. Yeah, six. Something like that. Depending on how long. Yeah, depending on how long we go. So. But yeah, that is the objective is to get through this whole thing. So. So I’m gonna let you. You wanted to read something, because I actually have a copy ready to rock and roll.

It’s a. It’s a. It’s a. It’s a scanned copy. I showed it to you a little bit earlier, but you said you have. I like. I have pages that I just love. I like paper, but. So there’s the introduction that I think you have, and then I have a postscript that came in later that he wrote. That’s just a paragraph or so that I’ll slip in there. And then it goes to the first section on the origin and design of government. It’s. It’s amazing. This pamphlet. I mean, this pamphlet is one of the things. Is like one of the really key things that convinced the populace as much as necessary anyway, that it really was going to have to be war.

Thomas Paine was, I think, more influential than even the governing body, apparently. It was extremely popular pamphlet. So I’m honored to read it. Honored to be here. So. Thank you so much, Ron. Oh, I, you know, well, you know, my, my channel is Untold History and for many, in, in, for many respects, a lot of the Revolutionary War period literature is untold history. Right. Isn’t that crazy? Yeah. And sad actually, in many respects because they’re, you know, you know, I, I, if I had to be considered a single issue voter, it would be about the Second Amendment because I firmly believe that the second Amendment protects the first.

And with the second, with the Second Amendment, you would. The second Amendment is the people’s protection against the tyrannical government. And so that’s. So therefore I am a very hardcore second Amendment advocate. That said, I’m, you know, the First Amendment was, you know, freedom of speech was designed so that people could resolve their differences through speech. I didn’t necessarily have to agree, but they needed to have, you know, they needed to have the ability to have their, their, their thoughts heard. And you know, the first and second Continental Congresses did that. And how much of John Adams have you gotten through? I only have the last episode of that tale, how it’s told by hbo, so I’ve seen a good deal of it and it is a, I was going to ask you, did you see the, the, I don’t remember which, which episode it was in, but when they had the, the artist that had been conscripted to paint them at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Did you, did. Have you seen that, that part yet where he berates the artist, he’s like, you, you make it look like we’re all standing here and, and, and, and, and it’s all hunky dory and it’s like I haven’t seen that yet. But yeah, yeah, it was so fractious. Yeah. I mean, and, and as soon as the government was formed, one of the first things that happened was they tried to limit free speech. And that was a big argument. So this has not ever been, this country has never been a utopia by any stretch. It’s just founded on the correct ideals, correct a thousand percent.

And I think that, you know, the, the document that they put out there, the, the Constitution, the only, the only document that I would say that actually was a better document than the Constitution. And I’m probably going to get some flack for saying this, but it would be the Confederate Constitution. Oh yeah, we got to get to that too. Not today, but. Right, Yeah. I mean, in. The Declaration of Independence is pretty freaking amazing. Yeah, it’s fantastic. But yeah, the, the, you know, the first, the first form of government was the Articles of Confederation. Right. And then the second form of government, which is why they say in order to form a more perfect union, you know that’s in order to form a more perfect union, we, you know, we the people.

And that’s where the we the people comes from. But did you know that initially it was supposed to be we the states? Yes. Are we the people of the states? Yes, yes. And, and but it was so long that they just said heck of they’ll just, we’ll just make it we we the people. And that was that. That shortcut really got to the truth of it. The greater truth of it, wouldn’t you say? I would, I would. But sometimes though I feel as though can be a little deceiving because the government was you know the, the government the way that it was founded was you were supposed to have two individual bodies that had a say in how the federal government operated.

The first body was the people, which is why they voted in their representatives to represent their interests at the federal level. The second body was the state governments. And that was what the Senate was. That’s why the Senate only has two senators per state regardless of size. And, and that was you know that was of course that came from the Great compromise. Well the 17th amendment which happened in the progressive era in you know, the like the 1912, 13 time frame. Basically what the 13 or the, what the 17th Amendment did was it took away the state’s ability to vote in the senators to speak for the states, the state government’s behalf and made it basically the Senate is now an over glorified House of Representatives with six year terms and they’re not representing the state in the state government interests.

So and that was, that was all a ploy to you know, further centralized government which is kind of what the, what the second American Revolution was. And most people don’t refer to it as the second American Revolution. But that was the Civil War. The Civil War in its at its core a civil war is two entities fighting for control of one entity. But the south was not fighting for control of Washington D.C. they were fighting for for control of their own self determination. And Washington D.C. was had invaded them and trying to force them back in to the Union.

But that’s a topic of conversation. That’s a whole nother topic of conversation. But getting to the why I think the the the Confederate Constitution was is just a step above the the our existing Constitution is because they they kind. It was basically a, a combination where it took all the good parts of The Articles of Confederation and all the good parts of the Constitution and put them together. So, yeah, that’s something we’re going to have to get to in greater depth for sure. And you know, when we were reading the Causes and Declaration necessity of taking up arms last week, one of the things in the sign off to that document, it ref a civil war.

And that war had not yet been seen as a revolution because they were British subjects still. So they were seeing it as a civil war and it became a revolution. Back to that, you know. Right. Civil versus revolutionary. Sure. And that’s a. You know what, I had never really considered it like that. But that, but, but that is true because at the time, you know, there was only, what, 3% of the population took up arms against the British at the time. And, and the, you know, if you’ve ever heard the term Tories, and I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to other, you know, to the, to the audience, if you’ve ever heard their term Tory, which is spelled T O R R E Y, the Tories were essentially the people that were loyal to Britain.

And at the culmination of the end of, you know, the, the revolution, a lot of those people actually moved back to Britain. Yes. They didn’t want to stay. Yeah, they always wanted to be more, really more British. And I do believe it’s T o r y. Is it T r Y O R E Y. But I could be wrong T O r Y the wigs and the Tories. So. Yeah. Okay, you. Well, thank you for correcting me. I, I don’t know where I got that from. But you made it up. I made it up. That’s what I do on this channel.

I just make up. Make up. Hey. But it’s all good. Well, I will let you do. What do you want to start with? Do you want to start with the introduction? Yeah, I’m going to read the introduction. Yeah, let’s do that. And it’s dated, so we’ll be able to really tune in, you know, drill down into what, what was on his mind right at this moment, you know, right before. See, where is this? It’s a few months before we went to war. Introduction to Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason, as a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question. And in matters, too, which might never have been thought of had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry. And as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right to support the Parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both and equally to reject the usurpations of either.

Let me pause you there for a second because I want to. I want to. I want to highlight something. This is an older copy, and what you’ll notice is certain words are capitalized that are not that. That would not ordinarily be capitalized in the traditional sense of how English is written. Yeah, but in this. In this particular day and age, they capitalized words. That. That’s basically their way of bolding or highlighting or italicizing a word. Was putting a capital letter on it. They also. Well, Thomas Paine, also in your edition here, there are some italicizations, and my edition has them in caps.

Certain words. I’ll give them a little emphasis without. You know, you don’t have to. Oh, you’re doing fine. Because. Because you’re doing it. You’re doing it perfectly. I just was. I just wanted to make sure that people understand because, you know, when you look at this sentence by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both and equality. Or equally to reject the usurpation of either. Yeah. So, I mean, there’s. Those are. Those are three words that are capitalized that wouldn’t ordinarily be capitalized. Yep. Mid sentence. Like that. Right. Yeah. Anyway, didn’t mean to interrupt you.

Also, nouns. I mean, similar to German, where all nouns are capitalized in German. This is an older version of English where nouns tend to be capitalized. But. Okay. Amazing guy. It’s just so. It’s great to end. His postscript is even better. Okay. In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided everything which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals, make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet. And those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.

The cause of America is, in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have and will arise, which are not local but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which their affections are interested. The laying of a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling. Of which class, regardless of party censure, is the author? He’s classing himself amongst the empathetic.

And then I have this amazing postscript. Well, it’s just a paragraph, but it’s awesome. Postscript to preface in the third edition. P.S. he says the publication of this new edition hath been delayed with a view of taking notice had it been necessary of any attempt to refute the doctrine of independence. As no answer hath yet appeared, it is now presumed that none will the time needful for getting such a performance ready for the public being considerably past who the author of this production is is wholly unnecessary to the public, as the object for attention is the doctrine itself, not the man.

Yet it may not be unnecessary to say that he is unconnected with any party and under no sort of influence, public or private, but the influence of reason and principle. Philadelphia, February 14, 1776. And I just think that’s so important. He points out he’s not a party partisan guy. And parties were not clearly established at this point. No, they were not. And what I love about what he says here, I have a great distaste for celebrity because it’s so vaunted and so, you know, our culture’s been so distorted by it. And I love how he emphasizes, look, it’s not about me, it’s about what I’m saying here.

Right. And, and that’s so true. And it needs to be. I think you. Oh, look at this post there. The postscript was here, I guess in a different order. I didn’t see it. Yeah, so. Oh, there it is. Okay. Yeah, good. But you know, I. What I like about how he started this out, you know, when he talked about the, when he said the author, he didn’t put his name down, he put the author. Yeah, he. It’s. It’s like, because he’s not writing this as though it’s, you know, he’s. He’s not trying to be self aggrandizing.

He’s writing this as like almost a plea to the public. It’s like, look, this isn’t about me, this is about us. And I’m just putting my words on paper and in print so that everybody can read them and. And, you know, ponder on them. And I. You know, and I think that’s a. I think that’s a very. That’s a. That’s a noble way to try to. To try to reach the public. It’s. Instead of it being, you know, narcissistic and all about me, it. This is about us and our future together. Yeah. So he doesn’t identify as this particular person, just as the author of this piece.

Right. So. Yeah. Of the. Yeah. Shall we. Okay. This is the first section, and that may be our stopping point. Let’s just see. Of the Origin and Design of Government in General with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution. Some writers have so confounded society with government as to leave little or no distinction between them, whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by wickedness. The former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.

The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Amen to that. Right. Well, I mean, it’s like. Is he writing this to people in 1776 or 2025? That’s what’s amazing. It’s eternal because it’s the rights of man. Yeah, yeah. Which he says at the outset, you know, that it’s. It’s the rights of man. It’s always relevant. Society in every state is a blessing. But government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil. And there’s that famous quote in its worst state, an intolerable one. For when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence. The palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver. But that, not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest. And this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils, to choose the least wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to insure it to us with the least expense and greatest benefit is preferable.

To all others. Amen. Yeah. Have you ever seen the John Birch Society’s kind of like their little presentations? It’s a 30 minute presentation on kind of like the systems and the forms of government and how, you know, they’re either oligarchies or totalitarian or fascism or, you know, all these different things and all the way, all the way down to anarchy. And he’s like, and they talked about how for true freedom you need to find the balance of, of, of some form of government, but it’s, it needs to be in the smallest form possible because the smallest form of government grants the, the most amount of freedom.

Yeah. And, but you cannot be truly free without some form of government. And what, what he meant, what they mean by that is if you, if, if, if it was an anarchist situation and there was no government, if you left your home, somebody could come and take it because that property is the, the property is only yours as long as you’re staying in it. But if you leave that property and no longer are guarding it to, you know, to like lay your claim, then somebody can just take it from you. Or somebody could come. If there’s no government entity to ensure your property rights, then somebody could just come and just take it from you by force.

Yeah. So you, you, you know, people who talk about anarchy or volunteerism I think is a, is a word that they use. You know, that’s not you, that’s, that’s, that’s just as theoretical as the utopia of, of communism. You, you, you, you have to have some form of government, as evil as it may be, to protect property rights. You just have to. Well, yeah, go ahead. Well, as he points out, the reason that you have to is that humans just aren’t there yet. You know, I mean, that’s what he just said in this previous paragraph. We wouldn’t need it if we were cool, but we’re not, so we need it.

You know, we need the, we need the support. Yeah, but not the tyranny. There’s a, so I have a, there’s a comment here. It says in the computing world there is a sliding scale with 100 secure on one end and 100 usable on the other. If it’s 100 secure, it’s unusable. And I think that is a, that is an absolutely apropos analogy and parallel to government. Yes, that’s, I guess why he sent you that comment. That’s a great comment. Thanks, thanks for that. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Anyway, I’ll let you continue. I think we’re on the second Paragraph.

In order. Yes, in order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest. They will then represent the first peopling of any country or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them therein. The strength of one man is so unequal to his wants and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude that he is soon obliged to seek assistance, assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same.

Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness. But one man might labor out the common period of his life without accomplishing anything. When he had felled his timber, he could not remove it nor erect it after it was removed. Hunger, in the meantime would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay, even misfortune, would be death. For though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

This necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing of which would supersede and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary, while they remained perfectly just to each other. But as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other. And this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a state house under the branches of which the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat. But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion, as at first when their number was small, their habitations near, and their public concerns few and trifling.

This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body. Who are supposed to have the same concern at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to. It will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number, and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors.

Prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other. And on this, not on the unmeaning name of king depends the strength of government and the happiness of the governed. That’s a powerful. That’s powerful right there.

Yeah, he’s pointing right at the King. I mean, to be overthrowing royalty like that. I mean, I think a lot of people, at least those I tend to talk to just on a daily basis, don’t really get how truly revolutionary this was to blow off royalty. Just a little anecdote here. You know, my, my mother loves to watch Downton Abbey and I just, I detest watching anything of British aristocracy because to me it’s like we, you know, we got rid of that because we didn’t, you know, we didn’t want to be part of that, you know, so, you know, it’s, I don’t know, like, and, and Americans, you know, when, whenever the, the new king was crowned and, or, or a, you know, there’s a royal wedding or anything, and, and how they just fawn all over.

That, to me is repugnant and repulsive. Repellent even. I just, I want nothing to do with that. And a lot of that, a lot of my philosophy and ideology stems really from from what we did to get rid and get away from British rule, which was basically, you know, an aristocracy class system. Absolutely. Well, I think that the royalty model appeals to the fantasy of a lot of people because it’s like this magical world where you have tremendous wealth and everybody loves you and you’re special and there’s nobody, you know, only you can be this thing, as opposed to the common people.

We’re common. We’re all the same, right? Commoners. That’s where that term. You know. That’s right. So I think there’s a big fantasy piece in that that, you know, it’s part of the same thing that we’re people who are drawn to. To celebrity. There’s a fantasy of being. And that’s in America. That’s the version of. Of aristocracy and royalty that we have here is celebrity. It kind of just got pushed over into that outlet, you know. So that’s why I was saying earlier I’m not a fan of celebrity, nor is Thomas Paine, who says right at the top, it’s about the doctrine, not about the man.

This is. This. This is actually the gentleman that I spoke of that, you know, told I wanted to introduce you to. So we just developed our own ar. Democracy less centralized to the same effect. Yeah. Which is true. Yeah, I. I think a lot of it is. It’s money, you know, it’s money. But this is such a big subject. There’s another big subject. But it is what they were trying to throw off because the concept of every man actually being equal. Again, I was saying this last week, too. I think I can’t say it or think it enough was insanely revolutionary that there should be.

That everyone should be equal. Are you kidding? That’s crazy. Like, right? Unheard of. Thoroughly unheard of. And I think that’s something today people really can’t get their minds around because we’ve had it, a version of it anyway, for a few hundred years here, you know, and so people kind of take it for granted. But it was thoroughly revolutionary then. Yeah, I’ll let. I’ll let you continue on. Okay. Let’s see here then. See where he’s going with this? Okay. Here then, is the origin and rise of government, namely a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world.

Here, too, is the design and end of government vis a vis freedom and security. Or I should say that is. Is kind of what that means. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with snow or our ears deceived by sound, however prejudice may warp our wills or interest, darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right. I draw my good. Sorry. Yeah, it’s just. It’s hard not to go. Hear, hear. Every time he says. I know. Right? I know. I’m, like, biting my tongue. I know. I was like in the olden days where they just would hit their desk, like.

Exactly. Which. Yeah, that was their form of clapping. They hit their desks. Don’t hold back. If you really must. Okay. All right. I’ll just. I’ll just hit my desk. All right. I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, that is, that the more simple anything is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered. And with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted Constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted.

When the world was overrun with tyranny, the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise is easily demonstrated. Absolute governments, through the disgrace of human nature, have this advantage with them, that they are simple. If the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the Constitution of England is so exceedingly complex that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies.

Some will say in one and some in another. And every political physician will advise a different medicine. I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices. Yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the English constitution, we shall find them to be the base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some new republican materials. First, the remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of the King. I mean, this is just like. So this is just revolutionary. I can’t even. Secondly, the remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers.

Thirdly, the new republican materials in the persons of the Commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England. The two. First, by being hereditary, are independent of the people. Wherefore, in a constitutional sense, they contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state. To say that the Constitution of England is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other is farcical. Either the words have no meaning or they are flat contradictions. To say that the Commons is a check upon the King presupposes two things. First, that the King is not to be trusted without being looked after.

Or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease monarchy. Secondly, that the Commons, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the Crown. But as the same constitution, which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills. It again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity. There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy.

It first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know it thoroughly. Wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless. Some writers have explained the English constitution. The King, say they, is one, the people another. The peers are in house in behalf of the King, the commons in behalf of the people. But this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against itself.

And though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined, they appear idle and ambiguous. And it will always happen that the nicest construction that words are capable of, when applied to the description of something which either cannot exist or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of description, will be words of sound only. And though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind. For this explanation includes a previous question, which is, how came the King? By a power which the people are afraid to trust and always obliged to check. Such a power could not be the gift of a wise people.

Neither can any power which needs checking be from God. Yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes such a power to exist. But the provision is unequal to the task. The means either cannot or will not accomplish the end. And the whole affair is a felo de se. For as the greater weight will always carry up the less. And as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight for that will govern. And though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavors will be ineffectual.

The first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time. That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution needs not be mentioned. And that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self evident. Wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of the Key. The prejudice of Englishmen in favor of their own government by king, lords and Commons arises as much or more from national pride than reason.

Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries, but the will of the King is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape of an act of Parliament. For the fate of Charles I only made kings more subtile, not more just. Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of modes and forms, the plain truth is that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people and not to the constitution of the government, that the Crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.

An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary. For as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one. That’s just awesome.

Wow. He compares. Go ahead, say again. Well, just that he compares the government to a prostitute. You know, it’s true. It is indeed. It’s one version. I mean, it’s also a parasite and many other things. So, so, so this is kind of funny. I’m just gonna share this real quick instead of, instead of pounding on a desk, he’s foot stomping. He or she, I don’t know, but. Right, right, right on. Oh, and Warhamser says at least with the prostitutes, you get what you pay for. That’s right. That’s a good point. I mean, I think really a better comparison in our day is, and it’s clear for us to see, is that it’s a parasite.

And then that lines up with what your commenter just said, where you just get. You give everything and get back nothing. Right. And, and, and Warhamster is the gentleman that I told you in New Hampshire who’s got access to the huge revolutionary collection. That’s exciting. Yeah, I mean, I happen to love books myself, so that’s very exciting to actually be able to lay your hands on the paper, the actual paper. So, yeah, he’s. And, and he’s extraordinarily intelligent. We, we, we’ve Done many shows together. Sometimes he. He actually popped in when. When I do. I do the Constitution class every.

Every Tuesday, and he. He occasionally will pop in and actually, I don’t exactly know when it’s going to transpire, but the. The gentleman that I do the Constitution class with, Ed Warhamster. We. We three are going to get together and discuss, uh, the differences between the, uh, comparing and contrasting the, uh, the actual Constitution with the Confederate constitution. Cool. So. Oh, that’ll be good. Yeah, that’ll be really good. Yeah. He says I’m like a little kid at Disneyland. Yeah. He hasn’t it. Isn’t it wonderful to actually have these documents that our country grew from, and these were all Englishmen.

I mean, I. You got to give written credit for that, really. Well, you know, it’s. It’s interesting that you say that because, you know, you know, I don’t like. I’m not a fan of England from the stance of what they kind of what they did in terms of the government that they formed and the class system that they did. But I will say that England, you know, to give credit where credit is due, England actually did civilize a large portion of the world of the globe that otherwise would not have been civilized. I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of the means that they utilized to achieve those ends.

Right. But, you know, but, but, you know, shoot. What. What is it? England was the first. They were the first empire that the sun never set on. Yeah. You know, literally all over the world. So. Yeah. And. And. And being, you know, if. If I’m being honest, intellectually honest about it, you know, they did a lot of very good things for the human race, but the banking wasn’t one of them. No. No, it’s not. And though this conversation makes me think of Eddie Lazard’s bit about English conquest just walking up to a bunch of people and going, do you have a flag? Right.

Speaking of, I got my flag turned the right way around. Oh, yes, we’re paying attention. I just like having it right there over my shoulder, you know, whichever direction it’s. The wind is blowing it in. Well, you see, and I have mine over my shoulder. Yes, you do. Yeah. And I don’t know if you know this or not, but that flag actually flew on the ship that I served on when we were underway. Wow. And I knew. I knew one of the signalmen and he, He. He knew that I really wanted a flag, and he. I love this one because it has.

It’s. It’s tattered at the end it’s all like frayed. Oh yeah, because it’s really used. Because it was really. Because it was used and it was no longer usable. So that’s why they, they decommissioned. They retired it. Yeah, retired it. Instead of burning it, he gave it to me. And, And. Cool. I’ve had it for 30 plus years. And you know, it’s, it’s. And another thing, you know, a lot of you guys, if you can’t see here, I’ll do this real quick. You can’t see. This is, this is my new studio that I’ve been working really hard on.

You can see in the upper, kind of up, right up in here, there’s a board there. And that, that board is a piece of teak wood from the, the New Jersey. And it has. I put the commissioning pennant on it, which is every ship that is in commission actually has one of those pennants flying to signify that it is a commissioned vessel within the United States Navy. If it’s no longer in commission, then that pennant is taken down. So anyway, just, just, just little, Just a couple of things, you know. So. Yeah, some flag stuff. Yeah.

I have a World War II flag that came home with one of my ancestors instead of him. Came home not with him, but instead of him. So a flag from 1945. Yes, 48 star flag. It’s. So I’ve, I’ve displayed it, I think on the, on my podcast before, but I’m doing the 13 colonies for this because that’s where we’re working from. I have a couple of 48 star flags, five by eights. They’re big and very. Exactly, Very, very, very well crafted. You know, you can tell that, you can tell the craftsmanship of, of our, you know, Even, you know, 50, 60 years ago, the craftsmanship was so much more solid than, Than what they do today, so.

Well, we’re gonna get that back, aren’t we? Yes, we’re gonna re industrialize. We’re gonna get that back. Made in the usa. Amen to that. Yes. It must happen. It’s that or it’s really. It’s that or we’re sunk. So we’ll do it because. Agreed. You know, we have to, so we will. Well, there’s so much. There’s, there’s, you know, not that I want to get off on. On a rabbit, go down a rabbit hole, but, you know, there are so many things that are happening right now where, where, you know, the ex. The fraud and corruption are being exposed.

It’s, it’s a very exciting time to be Alive. It’s right in time. It’s crazy. You don’t know what you’re gonna see next in the news. It’s, it’s, it’s really, it’s very step back, you know, and I mean, they talk about popcorn. I’m not quite there with it, but it is pretty entertaining. I, I, and just, just a, one more point about that. I watched a clip of a CNN round table where this guy had been talking. He’s like, it’s, it’s, it’s astonishing to me that, you know, basically on every issue you can come, you can, you can have a.

It’s, it’s going to be 80, 20, you know, 80 are going to be in 4 and 20% are going to be against. And he says it’s, it’s basically the Democrat Party has essentially adopted the philosophy that they’re going to be on the 20 no matter what. Yeah, they’re just, and it’s, it’s, and it’s like there’s no wonder that the approval rating of the Democrat Party is in the, is in, you know, the, in the 30 percentile region. You know, I, I just wonder why we have to have parties at all. I, I just don’t think we should even have parties because it always winds up with a consolidation of power.

And I know there were some of the founders who also hoped there would not be. Well, they were anti party system, but yeah, they were, they were, they were, they were anti party. And I, and I am in agreement with that, you know. Yeah. Because people. What, you know, people will elevate party above country. Yes, yes. And above autonomy. Individual autonomy. Right. Which, you know, that’s a lot of what this country was about as well. 100%. All right, I will let you continue. Well, so I wonder, this next section of monarchy and hereditary succession. Let’s see how long it is and make sure you want to do it all.

Let’s see. How do you want. Oh, yeah, it’s quite long. It’s 11 pages. Yeah. And we’re at about an hour. Yeah, let’s, let’s, let’s keep it at, let’s try to keep it at about an hour. So the, so, yeah, that’s, so this is a good place to kind of pause. Yeah, this would be a great one for, for next week to continue. I mean, there’s so much in what we just, we just read today that, I mean, I just have a lot of ad. I know, not the man, it’s the doctrine. But I can’t help admiring the man.

Oh, 100. You know, the. You know, what. What these men did and how, you know, I mean, you got to think, you know, in our world, we have the Internet. They didn’t have the Internet back then. Everything they did had to be written, handwritten or typed and. Or typeset and then put into like a. A press where they could, you know, get. Get the word out. And that is how they. That. That’s how they communicated. Yeah. And it was, you know, I mean, it was very rudimentary and very. Well, just very rudimentary to come compared to the standards that we, you know, have today.

Whereas, you know, you can pick up your phone and you can call somebody halfway around the world and get to them in a matter of seconds. Whereas if you wanted to get a letter to the king, it was three months. Yeah. Back then. So, by the way, since you did. Since you were able to. To finally overlook your. My aversion. Your aversion. Okay. So Ron recommended that I watch the series that HBO made about John Adams. And I’m. I’ve never been a fan of Paul Giamatti, so I never had watched it because he just looks so much like Homer Simpson, and I just don’t.

I just. I don’t know. But I. I went with it because I knew that you were certainly right that it was worth watching. And you, you know, I be. I just had to not always look at the screen when it was constantly. The camera was on him, but because it was too distracted. The Homer Simpson thing was just so distracting because he. He looks the part of a fool, you know, but. But it puts context in a way that I think is really valuable. The. The side of the White House in its early stages. Certain. And, and how the Adams has lived.

Very, very. It was like they were poor. I mean, you know, they were not living a grand life. And it made me especially in contrast. You see Versailles, you see France and how the monarchy there is living, and then you see what America is trying to put together. And it’s so talk about humble and simple, which. There’s been a lot of talk about that today. It really embodies that. I mean, just the room that the decisions are made in. It’s a bunch of tables kind of pushed toward each other. You know, I love that. I love the spareness of it.

It was. And I thought they did a very, very good job of, you know, capturing the essence of the period. Yes. Within France and in Britain, when he went to, you know, he was the. What the planet potentiary person to. To, you know, he was the first person to actually be. To stand in front of the King of England after the separation. And that was a very powerful scene. Yeah, that was a great scene. Yeah. And I don’t know how. I mean, I. I don’t know enough about it to know if. Were those statements all recorded? Was there, you know, was it all written down? Or was that Hollywood? Was that just Hollywood? Yeah.

So I haven’t had it. Yeah, I haven’t had a chance to research that, but that’s something I would like to know. But it was a great scene. And the fact he has to change his clothes, he’s kind of gotten Frenchified. And then he has to look like an English barrister. You know, he practically looks like a copywriter, like Scrooge’s, you know, whatever. Stooges. Slavish worker. Well, I thought it was really funny that, you know, that they had to train him on how he had to behave when he walked into the King. Oh, you do. Three times.

And you. Yes, this is a big deal. And this is why it was such a big deal when Trump did not do any of those things. Correct. Yeah. He did not bow. And I. I’m in agreement. I don’t want to go bow to some person. Nope. No. Amen. No, I am in full agreement. And. And again, that’s where I, you know, that’s just where I have a problem with a lot of the British aristocracy stuff. It’s, you know, I, I just. Yeah, I. I have a very, very, very difficult time with it, I think. You know, it’s.

Again, it’s a fantasy, Fantasy life, you know, fantasy world. Some people can gain pleasure from, I guess, picturing what that would be like and admiring, you know, something that they themselves don’t have. And, of course, I admire plenty of things I don’t have. Don’t get me wrong. They’re plenty of things I’d love to have that I admire. But. But keep holding on to your xrp. Yes, that’s right. That’s right. There’s no not going anywhere. Keep holding onto the xrp. I have an idea that, that we’ll be able to have a lot of things that we don’t have now in the future.

You know, I was sending. I was sending a wire to the International Wire today to the uk, and talking to the banker, you know, just a. Not a teller, but whoever the wiring person. And I thought I would see if she knew anything at all about anything regarding this. And so I said, well, you know, because it’s just stupidly expensive, though. And slow the email relay. And so I said, well, it looks like, you know, probably xrp, maybe swiftcoin is gonna probably, you know, gonna change all of this. And she just gave me a blank look.

Oh, were you actually talking? You talking? Yeah, I went in to send a wire at a bank. And I love these ladies. I love going into the bank and joking with them and making them laugh, goofing around. But sometimes they’ll throw something like that and they don’t know what I’m talking about. Some. Some do. Some. I will say, you know, when you talk to people, because I’ve talked to several people on the phone and, and whatnot. And, you know, when you talk to people on the phone, it is. Some do know, some don’t. Some do. And I do.

And I do strive to educate a little bit to some of the people that I do talk to when I, When I do, you know, do stuff like that. And. Mm. It’s, you know, a lot of people that’s like, oh, I’ve, you know, I’ve always wanted to learn about that, but I’ve never, never taken a chance or never. I’ve never tried this. And I get, I say, hey, here’s this, here’s this. Go here, go there. You know, I give them. Give them a few places that they can start to look. And a lot of people kind of wanted me to do some content on crypto, and I just, you know, I’m so, I’m so hesitant to do that because I don’t want to be.

Because I, I know for me, when I first did it, when I first got into it, I, I failed a couple of times. I failed with some things and cost myself, you know, some serious amounts of money. Yes. But, but I’m not, you know, I was intellectually honest enough to know that it was my mistake. You know, I did that. Yep. But. But, but, you know, there are a lot of people out there who won’t, you know, it’s. It’s easier for them to lay blame on somebody else for telling them to do something as opposed to taking responsibility for their own actions.

So I don’t know. That’s maybe. And maybe that’s a cop out, but I just, you know, when you’re dealing with money, people. People could get very, very fickle. Yeah, yeah. You don’t, you don’t want to put yourself out there. I understand, as a financial advisor, but I mean, maybe it will come in at some point into the kind of contemporary, untold history, but. Right. But I love this revolutionary Period. It’s so thrilling and I feel like we are in it again. I agreeing again. And it’s happening in a really different way, but with all the same themes.

A lot of the same themes. Of course, the corruption has gotten so extreme from where it was when Hamilton and Jefferson and Adams and all these guys were, were putting this together. But there’s always human frailty, so. Always. Yeah, well, and if I may, I, you know, to piggyback on what you just said, I think that we are in a revolutionary period, period right now. But we’re in a different type of a revolutionary period right now because it’s not just the United States that’s undergoing this revolution. It’s. This is a revolution by the common people all over the world.

Yeah. And they are looking at the United States for leadership and the, and the, and the worldwide. We are throwing off all of this, all this, this tyrannical crap of our own. So that’s. I was what I wanted to ask you. Do you think that the world looks, is looking to us for leadership in this area? I think so. I think the world. I think, I think, you know, I think the world generally knows that the people of the United States for the most part, are not the equivalent of the government of the United States. And, and in all, in all frankness, I think the vast majority, I think the vast majority of the world that does see any elements of the United States, what they see is basically, you know, CIA or USAID or whatever that is, that it’s not there for their benefit, but they’re to rate their, their land, their countryside of their natural resources for, you know, industrial development, you know, at their, at the expense of the people of those countries.

And, and I, I do believe that we are in the process of entering into a world where those, where, you know, we are going to have an explosion of kind of like, you know, I, I guess not that I want to quote Klaus Schwab, you know, when he talks about the fourth Industrial Revolution. I actually do believe that that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s a somewhat accurate statement, but I’m not going to have it as. I don’t want to glamorize, you know, his statement, but I do believe that we are going to, to enter into a, into another, you know, style of industrial revolution, but it’s going to be worldwide, not just in the United States.

And, and I think the world is looking to the, to specifically to the leadership of people like President Trump. So, you know, to, to, to, to push that along well, so it’s interesting you mentioned Trump, because I was going to say, and regarding England and America, that centuries old relationship that a lot of them, a lot of people in the British Isles detest Trump. I mean, I’m sure a lot of people around the world do, but specifically what I’ve seen. Well, some for the reason that they don’t trust him. And I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole, you know, the whole Palantir backing and all that stuff.

But a lot because. And he has experienced this throughout his political career a lot because he’s, he’s brash. And I’ve seen, you know, Brits and Scots saying things like, well, our English heroes are, are witty and subtle and, and he’s just a big ass. And I’m like, well, why don’t we look at what he’s doing and if you don’t want to go to a cocktail party with them, don’t go. You know, and I’m not defending the guy, but it’s just interesting that. Well, I think under so much oppression also, but they just can’t stand this guy.

It doesn’t matter. I actually, I’m going to push back on that a little bit because I remember when Trump went over to the UK and there was a, there was a huge contingent of people that lined the streets. Oh, I’m sure that were, that were very pro Trump. Yes, yes. Yeah. Because it’s divided, of course. I just think. Right. There’s a significant voice there and their complaint is that he’s not more English in his character, which I think is pretty upright. Well, it’s like, you know what? I, I would say that, I, I would say that the characteristics that he portrays is uniquely American in his brashness and optimism.

Swagger. Conceit. His swagger. Absolutely. That’s all, that’s all American. Yes. And that goes back to like overpaid, over sexed and over here, you know, you know, there was a, the, the, There was another miniseries that came out called. Oh, it was, it was, it was about. What was it called? Doggone. And I’m drawing a blank. But it was all about the, the bombing campaign. Uh, the Allied bombing campaign. Uh, I’m gonna find this because. Bombing of. No, no, no. It was a, it was a miniseries that, that came out and I’m gonna find it. The bombing of London or bombing of Dresden or bombing of.

Nope. Well, it was the, it was basically the Allied bombing campaign. Overall. I see. Overall. And it was. Let’s see here. Here it is miniseries Masters of the air. Masters of the air. Yes, yes, yes. And there was a scene, there was a scene in there when this, this gentleman who was the, he was like the, the navigator and the planner of the, of the missions and whatnot, and the British were complaining about the behavior of the Americans, you know, and they use, they use the, the statement that you just did, you know, over sexed, over, over, over paid, over text and over here.

Yeah. And the one of the guys said to this American officer, he says, why don’t you, you know, if you guys would teach your people to, you know, to, to have more respect, you know, probably, you know, we, you know, our people would, would, would respect them more. And, and, and he said, he, he kind of responded. He’s like, with all due respect, that whatever, whatever day they’re living, maybe their last. Yeah. And I’m not going to tell them to curtail themselves in any way, shape, matter or form, because I want them to live life to the fullest while they can.

Yeah, yeah, I remember that. And of course, you know, I’m, I’m as, as, as much as I’m proud of my military service, you know, I have basically become a pacifist. I, I, I am not a fan of war. Of course, war is, you know, as Smedley Butler wrote so eloquently, war is a racket. And yeah, they are, they are not. You know, it doesn’t, it’s, it is a way for the elite to skim money and take money from the people and a way to, you know, cull populations. Absolutely. They’re bankers. Wars. But I do think that the, the American Revolution was not a banker’s war.

And the documents that we’re reading really lay out the actual reasons for it, which, you know, I got to agree with Thomas Paine and those founder dudes. Well, I think banking, banking was certainly a part of it. Sure. But it, that wasn’t necessarily, I don’t think it was a banker’s war in the, in the sense, not in the way that, like World War I or World War II. Yes, exactly. Yes, all, all of them. All the other ones, pretty much. Absolutely. So. Well, anyway, this is, this has been fun. I don’t, I know that, you know, you and I, when we get together, we talk anyway, but this, talking about this kind of stuff really just, it just gets my juices flowing.

I love. Yes. It’s inspiring, isn’t it? Absolutely. Yeah. So, so you want to kind of loosely plan on next, next week to do it again? Absolutely. I think we should continue with. Absolutely. Of monarchy and hereditary succession. A thousand percent. I agree with that. Okay, do you have, like, social media? Are you out there where anybody can follow you? Oh, you bet. I have a. My website is carringtonmacduffy.com. i’m a recording artist, so I have a lot of songs on. You can find me on all the music platforms, Spotify at Apple Music and all that. I have a YouTube channel, a lot of music videos, and my podcast, Starseeds of Freedom, is hosted there.

And also on my Rumble Channel, which is Starseeds of Freedom. Nice. I like that. Star Seeds of Freedom. That’s fantastic. Well, Carrington, thank you for tonight, for. For, you know, for lending your voice. It’s very soothing. Well, we want it also to be rousing, don’t we? I don’t know, but. Well, thank you so much for having me. I love this material, and this is a really, really great project, Untold History. So thanks for having me. I appreciate that. Thank you. And thank you for tonight. And we’ll look forward to seeing you guys next week. So until then, everybody, have a good night.

Thanks for being with us.
[tr:tra].